← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/170/2015dismissed

Raghunandan Mandal And ORS. v. Most. Yogmaya Devi And ORS.

2018-10-09Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.170 of 2015 In Second Appeal No.436 of 2011 ======================================================

1. Raghunandan Mandal

2. Sikandar Mandal

3. Subhash Mandal all sons of Late Kishun Mandal @ Kishan Mandal All residents of village - Rajabar, P.S. Rajoun, Distt. - Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Most. Yogmaya Devi W/o Late Arjun Mandal

2. Sachidanand Singh

3. Arun Kumar Singh

4. Dilip Kumar Singh

5. Binod Kumar Singh

6. Manoj Kumar Singh

7. Sanjay Kumar Singh all sons of Late Arjun Mandal

8. Ranjan Devi

9. Meena Devi

10. Renu Devi @ Mandal all daughters of Late Arjun Mandal All residents of village - Rajabar, P.S. Rajoun, Distt. - Banka

11. Mahendra Mandal son of Late Kishori Mandal

12. Smt. Jhuria Devi wife of Kanhai Mandal

13. Smt. Chandrika Devi wife of Manohar Mandal

14. Manju Devi wife of Mahesh Mandal All residents of village - Rajabar, P.S. Rajoun, Distt. - Banka

15. Manchar Mandal

16. Kanhai Mandal

17. Mahesh Mandal All sons of Late Ram Charan Mandal All residents of village - Chakchamu, P.S. Mahagama, District - Godda ( Jharkhand )

18. Fuchia Devi daughter of Late Ramcharan Mandal W/o Ramdhan Mandal R/o village - Harchandi, P.S. Rajoun, District - Banka

19. Daso Devi

20. Ushmi Devi

21. Ranjo Devi All daughters of Late Kishun Mandal R/o village - Rajabar, P.S. Rajoun, Distt. - Banka ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-10-2018 During the pendency of MJC No. 6439 of 2013, this

Patna High Court MJC No.170 of 2015(3) dt.09-10-2018 2/2 application for restoration of S.A.No. 436 of 2011 has been filed. There is objection by the Registry that the second appeal is not maintainable. The objection of the Registry deserves to be sustained.

Explaining the reason why the second restoration application was filed, learned counsel for the petitioners states that it was out of inadvertence since the file was handed over to him, after obtaining 'no objection certificate' from another counsel on 08.01.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not have the idea of filing of the restoration application, before he filed the second restoration application on 16.01.2015. Mistake on the part of the learned counsel and even the petitioners, though appears to be out of inadvertence and bonafide, this application cannot be maintained. This application is accordingly dismissed as being not maintainable with a liberty to the learned counsel for the petitioners to take fresh steps for restoration of S.A. No. 436 of 2011.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) HR/- U